How do you know? Do you have the secret list of infallible pronouncements? And, given that Lumen Gentium demands submission to your supreme pontiff when he is not infallible, what difference would it make, other than pulling the scriptural rug from under your ultramontanism?

Don't have to have a list. I follow my Church and I know the criteria for an infallible pronouncement. One criterion is it has to be on faith and morals, not discipline. Circumcision falls under the latter.

That doesn't prove St. Peter couldn't have stepped in and spoke after St. James, it only proves that he didn't.

It doesn't prove that ancient astronauts couldn't have broadcast the decision to earth. Just that they didn't.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

It is not a non sequitur. How do you think it is not related to the discussion? Papal infallibility is not absolute. There are only certain situations where we believe that the Pope can speak infallibility,

and it is a deep, dark secret of the list of occasions when he has "done" so.

and the issue being dealt with in the Council of Jerusalem was not one of them.

How do you know? Do you have the secret list of infallible pronouncements? And, given that Lumen Gentium demands submission to your supreme pontiff when he is not infallible, what difference would it make, other than pulling the scriptural rug from under your ultramontanism?

Well, to be fair, I don't think your average Joe or Mary Catholic actually sits around thinking about infallibility of their pope. But, it still is an issue.

In Christ,Andrew

Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos

It is not a non sequitur. How do you think it is not related to the discussion? Papal infallibility is not absolute. There are only certain situations where we believe that the Pope can speak infallibility,

and it is a deep, dark secret of the list of occasions when he has "done" so.

and the issue being dealt with in the Council of Jerusalem was not one of them.

How do you know? Do you have the secret list of infallible pronouncements? And, given that Lumen Gentium demands submission to your supreme pontiff when he is not infallible, what difference would it make, other than pulling the scriptural rug from under your ultramontanism?

It is not a non sequitur. How do you think it is not related to the discussion? Papal infallibility is not absolute. There are only certain situations where we believe that the Pope can speak infallibility,

and it is a deep, dark secret of the list of occasions when he has "done" so.

and the issue being dealt with in the Council of Jerusalem was not one of them.

How do you know? Do you have the secret list of infallible pronouncements? And, given that Lumen Gentium demands submission to your supreme pontiff when he is not infallible, what difference would it make, other than pulling the scriptural rug from under your ultramontanism?

Well, to be fair, I don't think your average Joe or Mary Catholic actually sits around thinking about infallibility of their pope. But, it still is an issue.

In Christ,Andrew

No, but it is useful for Catholics to know what teachings are infallible and which are not.

For example, there are theologians who say that the teaching on contraception in Humanae Vitae is infallible. Others disagree.

The Pope obviously doesn't know. He won't say.

So Catholics are not obliged to accept it as infallible.

Oh, no doubt. I've meet those on both sides of the "Is Humanae Vitae Infallible" debate. It's interesting!

In Christ,Andrew

Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos

I don't recall that occurring in the New Testament. I do recall St Paul rebuking St Peter to his face, though. And his brother apostles rebuked him also at the Council of Jerusalem. Jesus called him "Satan" and rebuked him a few times. I think St Peter was too humble to claim he had supremacy over his brother bishops.

Any primacy that Peter has is dependent upon his orthodoxy, which, judging by the actual Peter, is by no means guaranteed.

And yet Jesus said to Peter, "Simon Peter, feed my lambs."

St. Peter was martyred. That means something.

Why is it some of the Orthodox arguments against the Roman Catholic papacy seem to have to degrade St. Peter himself in order to try to make their point? He's one of the Orthodox saints. Have a little respect.

The same reason that Protestants have to degrade the Mother of God when arguing with Catholics?

Also, the council of Jerusalem does not disprove Papal Infallibility because the matter was regarding Church discipline, not faith and morals.

The Council of Jerusalem isn't used as an argument against infallibility, it is used as an argument against Supremacy.

Actually, it has been used as an argument against both. That St. Paul's view won out against St. Peter has been cited as proof against Papal Infallibility, and that St. James had the final word instead of St. Peter has been cited as proof against Papal Supremacy. Both are wrong.

If Christ had willed Peter to have any papal authority at the Council of Jerusalem then Catholics today would be required to circumcise their male children and to observe kosher food rules and not to eat with non-Jews. Peter really was NOT doing a very good job in shepherding the Church in these areas.

Wrong. If you will go back and read my previous post I pointed out that the issue of circumcision is in the same category as clerical celibacy. They are Church disciplines, not doctrines or dogmas. Not only can disciplines change, but they do change, and the Successor of St. Peter is not protected from erring on disciplines of the Church.

The question was over whether the discipline was necessary for salvation. That makes it a matter of faith.

It is not a non sequitur. How do you think it is not related to the discussion? Papal infallibility is not absolute. There are only certain situations where we believe that the Pope can speak infallibility,

and it is a deep, dark secret of the list of occasions when he has "done" so.

and the issue being dealt with in the Council of Jerusalem was not one of them.

How do you know? Do you have the secret list of infallible pronouncements? And, given that Lumen Gentium demands submission to your supreme pontiff when he is not infallible, what difference would it make, other than pulling the scriptural rug from under your ultramontanism?

Well, to be fair, I don't think your average Joe or Mary Catholic actually sits around thinking about infallibility of their pope. But, it still is an issue.

In Christ,Andrew

No, but it is useful for Catholics to know what teachings are infallible and which are not.

For example, there are theologians who say that the teaching on contraception in Humanae Vitae is infallible. Others disagree.

The Pope obviously doesn't know. He won't say.

So Catholics are not obliged to accept it as infallible.

Oh, no doubt. I've meet those on both sides of the "Is Humanae Vitae Infallible" debate. It's interesting!

In Christ,Andrew

I think the Pope is hedging his bets. That is why he won't come out and say that the teaching on contraception is infallible and morally binding on all his flock worldwide. There is the speech to the cardinals by Pope Paul VI at the time of the promulgation in which he tells them the teaching may be altered according to future understandings.

Very few Catholics are aware of that speech and its important contents. I would say it is not made widely known because the Popes want the faithful to believe that the teaching is unchangeable. But the speech is there as a backstop and something the Popes can refer to when they want to justify any changes in the future. "Look, even Paul VI said the teaching could change!"